Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) - Preliminary Objections - The Court declares the Application of the Republic of Guinea admissible in so far as it concern

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org

Press Release
Unofficial

No. 2007/14
24 May 2007

Ahmadou Sadio Diallo
(Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Preliminary Objections

The Court declares the Application of the Republic of Guinea admissible in so far
as it concerns protection of Mr. Diallo’s rights as an individual and of his

direct rights as associé in Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire

THE HAGUE, 24 May 2007. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial
organ of the United Nations, toda y delivered its Judgment on the pr eliminary objections raised by

the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo
(Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo).

In its Judgment, the Court

(1) As regards the preliminary objection to admissibility raised by the Democratic Republic
of the Congo for lack of standing by the Republic of Guinea to exercise diplomatic protection in
the present case:

(a) unanimously,

Rejects the objection in so far as it concerns protection of Mr.Diallo’s direct rights as
associé in Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire;

(b) by fourteen votes to one,

Upholds the objection in so far as it concerns protection of Mr.Diallo in respect of alleged
violations of rights of Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire;

IN FAVOUR : President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi,

Koroma, Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Tomk a, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov;
Judge ad hoc Mampuya;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

(2) As regards the preliminary objection to admissibility raised by the Democratic Republic

of the Congo on account of non-exhaustion by Mr. Diallo of local remedies; - 2 -

(a) unanimously,

Rejects the objection in so far as it concerns protection of Mr.Diallo’s rights as an
individual;

(b) by fourteen votes to one,

Rejects the objection in so far as it concerns protection of Mr. Diallo’s direct rights as associé
in Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire;

IN FAVOUR : President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi,

Koroma, Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Tomk a, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov;
Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Mampuya;

(3) In consequence,

(a) unanimously,

Declares the Application of the Republic of Guinea to be admissible in so far as it concerns
protection of Mr. Diallo’s rights as an individual;

(b) by fourteen votes to one,

Declares the Application of the Republic of Guinea to be admissible in so far as it concerns
protection of Mr. Diallo’s direct rights as associé in Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire;

IN FAVOUR : President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi,
Koroma, Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Tomk a, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov;
Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Mampuya;

(c) by fourteen votes to one,

Declares the Application of the Republic of Guinea to be inadmissible in so far as it concerns
protection of Mr.Diallo in respect of allege d violations of rights of Africom-Zaire and
Africontainers-Zaire.

IN FAVOUR : President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi,
Koroma, Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Tomk a, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov;
Judge ad hoc Mampuya;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Mahiou.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court notes that the Parties are in agreement as to the following facts.

Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, a Guinean citizen, founded in 1974 in the DRC (called “Congo”
between 1960 and 1971 and “Zaire” between 1971 and 1997) an import-export company,
Africom-Zaire, a société pr ivée à responsabilité limitée (private limited liability company,

hereinafter “SPRL”) incorporated under Zairean law of which he became the gérant (manager). In
1979 Mr.Diallo took part, with backing from two private partners, in the founding of another
Zairean SPRL, Africontainers-Zaire, specializing in the containerized transport of goods. In 1980
the two partners in Africontainers-Zaire withdr ew, giving rise to a redistribution of the parts - 3 -

sociales in Africontainers-Zaire among Africom-Zair e and Mr.Diallo himself, who became the
gérant of Africontainers-Zaire. Towards the end of the 1980s, Africom-Zaire’s and

Africontainers-Zaire’s relationships with their business partners started to deteriorate. The two
companies, acting through their gérant , then initiated various steps, including judicial ones, in an
attempt to recover alleged debts from the Za irean State and publicly and privately owned
companies in Zaire. For the most part those disputes remain unresolved today.

The Court considers to be established that on 31October1995 the Prime Minister of Zaire
issued an expulsion Order against Mr.Diallo and on 31January1996 Mr.Diallo was deported
from Zaire and returned to Guinea by air. The deportation was served on Mr. Diallo in the shape of

a notice of refusal of entry (refoulement) on account of “illegal residence” (séjour irrégulier) that
had been drawn up at the Kinshasa airport.

The Court observes that the Parties differ on the specific circumstances of Mr.Diallo’s

arrest, detention and expulsion, and on the reasons for it. Guinea maintains that they were the
culmination of a policy to prevent him from recovering the debts owed to his companies. The DRC
rejects that allegation and argues that his expulsion was justified by the fact that his presence and
conduct compromised public order in Zaire.

On examination of the submissions made by Guinea, the Court notes that the Applicant seeks
through its action to exercise its diplomatic protec tion on behalf of Mr.Diallo for the violation,
alleged to have occurred at the time of his arr est, detention and expulsion, or to have derived

therefrom, of three categories of rights: his individual personal rights, his direct rights as associé in
Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire and the rights of those companies, by “substitution”.

With respect to jurisdiction, the Court observes that both Parties have made declarations

under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. The DRC nevertheless challenges the admissibility of
Guinea’s Application and raises two preliminary obj ections. According to the DRC, Guinea lacks
standing to act in the current proceedings since the rights which it seeks to protect belong to
Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire, Congolese companies, not to Mr.Diallo. Guinea, it is

argued, is further precluded from exercising its di plomatic protection on the ground that neither
Mr. Diallo nor the companies have exhausted the remedies available in the Congolese legal system
to obtain reparation for the injuries claimed.

⎯ Protection of Mr. Diallo’s rights as an individual

The Court considers whether Guinea has met th e requirements for the exercise of diplomatic
protection under customary international law, that is to say whether Mr.Diallo is a national of

Guinea and whether he has exhausted the local remedies available in the DRC.

With regard to the first point, the Court ob serves that it is not disputed by the DRC that
Mr.Diallo’s sole nationality is that of Guinea a nd that he has continuously held that nationality

from the date of the alleged injury to the date the proceedings were initiated.

With regard to the second point, the Court notes that “t]he rule that local remedies must be
exhausted before international proceedings may be instituted is a well-established rule of

customary international law”. In considering the issue of the exhaustion of local remedies
regarding Mr.Diallo’s expulsion, to which the Pa rties limited their arguments, the Court recalls
that the expulsion was characterized as a “refusal of entry” when it was carried out and that refusals
of entry are not appealable under Congolese law. In reply to the argument of the DRC whereby the

immigration authorities allegedly “inadvertently” used the term “refusal of entry” instead of
“expulsion”, an error which was not intended to deprive Mr.Diallo of a remedy, the Court
considers that the DRC cannot now rely on such an error to claim that Mr.Diallo should have

treated the measure taken against him as an expulsi on. As for the possibility for Mr.Diallo of
requesting reconsideration by the competent admi nistrative authority, the Court indicates that - 4 -

administrative remedies can only be taken into consideration for purposes of the local remedies rule
if they are aimed at vindicating a right and not at obtaining a favour, unless they constitute an

essential prerequisite for the admissibility of subseque nt contentious proceedings. It finds that this
was not the situation in the present case.

The Court concludes that Guinea’s Application is admissible in so far as it concerns the

protection of Mr. Diallo’s rights as an individual.

⎯ Protection of Mr. Diallo’s direct rights as associé in Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire

With respect to Guinea’s standing, the Court recalls that the exercise by a State of diplomatic
protection on behalf of a natural or legal person, who is associé or shareholder, having its
nationality, seeks to engage the responsibility of an other State for an injury caused to that person
by an internationally wrongful act committed by that State. In the case of associés or shareholders,

what amounts to the internationally wrongful act is the violation by the respondent State of their
direct rights in relation to a legal person, direct ri ghts that are defined by the domestic law of that
State. Having considered the arguments of the Parties, the Court finds that Guinea does indeed
have standing in this case in so far as its action involves a person of its nationality, Mr. Diallo, and

is directed against the allegedly unlawful acts of the DRC which are said to have infringed his
rights, particularly his direct rights as associé of the two companies Africom-Zaire and
Africontainers-Zaire.

With respect to the argument that local reme dies have not been exhausted, the Court notes
that the alleged violation of Mr.Diallo’s direct rights as associé of Africom-Zaire and
Africontainers-Zaire was dealt with by Guinea as a direct consequence of his expulsion. The Court
has already found that the DRC has not proved that there were effective remedies, under Congolese

law, against the expulsion Order. The Court further observes that at no time has the DRC argued
that remedies distinct from those in respect of Mr. Diallo’s expulsion existed in the Congolese legal
system against the alleged violations of his direct rights as associé and that he should have
exhausted them.

Guinea’s Application is consequently admissible in so far as it concerns the protection of
Mr. Diallo’s direct rights as associé of the two companies Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire.

⎯ Protection with respect to MrD . iallo “by substitution” for Africom-Zaire and
Africontainers-Zaire

The Court addresses the question of whether Guinea can, as it claims, exercise diplomatic

protection with respect to Mr.Diallo “by s ubstitution” for the companies Africom-Zaire and
Africontainers-Zaire. The theory of protecti on by substitution seeks to offer protection to the
foreign shareholders of a company who could not re ly on the benefit of an international treaty and

to whom no other remedy is available, the a llegedly unlawful acts having been committed against
the company by the State of its nationality. Having examined State practice and decisions of
international courts and tribunals, the Court is of the opinion that these do not reveal ⎯ at least at
the present time ⎯ an exception in customary international law allowing for protection by

substitution, such as is relied on by Guinea. The Court then considers whether customary
international law contains a more limited rule of protection by substitution, such as that set out by
the International Law Commission (ILC) in its draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, which

would apply only where a company’s incorporation in the State having committed the alleged
violation of international law “was require d by it as a precondition for doing business there”
(Art. 11, para. (b)). The Court notes that this very speci al case does not seem to correspond to the
one it is dealing with here, as it has not satisfact orily been established that the incorporation of

Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire in Zaire w ould have been required of their founders to - 5 -

enable them to operate in the economic sectors conc erned. Therefore, the question of whether or
not the ILC’s draft Article 11, paragraph (b) , reflects customary international law does not arise in

this case.

The Court cannot thus accept Guinea’s claim to exercise diplomatic protection by
substitution. Having arrived at this conclusion, the Court need not further consider the DRC’s

objection based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies.

Guinea’s Application is consequently inadmissibl e in so far as it concerns the protection of
Mr. Diallo in respect of alleged violations of the rights of Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh;

JudgesRanjeva, Shi, Koroma, Buergenthal, Owa da, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna,
Skotnikov; Judges ad hoc Mahiou, Mampuya; Registrar Couvreur.

Judge adhoMahiou has appended a declaration to the Judgment of the Court;

Judge ad hoc Mampuya has appended a separate opinion.

___________

A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No.2007/3”, to which
summaries of the declaration and opinion are annexed. In addition, this press release, the summary

and the full text of the Judgment can be found on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org), on the
“Press Room” and “Cases” pages.

___________

Information Department:

Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)

Messrs. Boris Heim and Maxime Schouppe, Information Officers (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Assistant Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)